| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "BENTHAM UTILITARIANISM CLASSICAL THEORY CRIMINOLOGY": |
|
|
Bentham, Utilitarianism, and the Classical Theory of Criminology, 2004.
An examination of the contributions made by Jeremy Bentham towards criminology theories.
1,987 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the criminology theories of Jeremy Bentham. It begins by providing a biographical background of Bentham and explains how his love for law and criminology pushed him to develop new theories. It discusses why these theories were controversial at the time and looks at some critiques of the theories.
From the Paper
"Bentham?s contribution to the classical theory came in the form of an idea he advanced called utilitarianism (Siegel, 2000). The theory of utilitarianism is based around the idea that lawmaking should be done with the goal of providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Siegel, 2000). Bentham believed that empirical calculations could be derived to judge what laws would provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As for the criminal application of this theory, he believed that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain. This balancing of outcomes served as the deciding factor of whether or not an individual would commit an illegal act. Accordingly, Bentham believed that if the proposed pain was in excess of the pleasure derived from the crime, then no crime would result. This is utilitarianism in its simplest sense. In order to understand in a deeper sense (one that explains contexts, applications, and criticisms) one has to look deeper into Bentham?s ideas on legal duties, obligations, and powers, and how these contributed to utilitarianism, and finally, how utilitarianism contributed to the classical theory as we understand it today."
| |
|
Bentham and Utilitarianism, 2002.
An overview of the utilitarian views of philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.
2,775 words (approx. 11.1 pages), 3 sources, $ 102.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will consider in detail the arguments of the theorist who is widely regarded as the 'founding father' of contemporary utilitarian ethics, Jeremy Bentham. As we shall see, Bentham's version of this theory differs, in important respects, from the outline given above.
| |
|
Jeremy Bentham?s ?Classical Utilitarianism?, 2004.
This paper discusses Jeremy Bentham?s ?Classical Utilitarianism?, the economies of pleasure and pain.
885 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 1 source, APA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that utilitarianism is defined as the idea that individuals and government should attempt to do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. The author points out that Bentham?s argument is based on individual rather than collective rights. The paper concludes that it is only the majority rule of individuals that determines what is right or wrong according to community dictates, and above all, the same process is applicable to pleasure and pain, in whatever shape they appear.
From the Paper
"If a person fears pain, it is thus much worse if it is very intense, for a long duration, is close at hand, is certain, is apt to be given again, and will not be followed by pleasure. Perhaps an example might be, to take a relatively benign comparison. Who is in more pain of the following two students? A poor student, facing the SATs the next morning, who must take the test and is compelled to do so by his zealous parents, but feels he or she is doomed to failure versus a good student, offered the option of taking an extra credit quiz at some point in the semester, the time of which he or she may choose, of less than a half-hour?s time, followed by a pizza party? The individual in the most pain, in the scenarios, is intuitively obvious, even if one does not grade the two upon Bentham?s scales of intensities of pain and pleasure."
| |
|
Classical Criminology, 2004.
An overview of several theories regarding classical criminology.
1,558 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how the backdrop for the creation of the classical school of criminology was the movement in Europe traditionally referred to as the Enlightenment. It looks at how, generally, the Italian thinker, Cesare Beccaria, is credited with the creation of classical criminology and how, in creating his ideas, he did not so much generate original concepts as link together and systematize the ideas that were already circulating in the Enlightenment into a cohesive theory of criminology. It also shows how his influences were thinkers such as Locke, Bacon, Rousseau, and Diderot. It looks at how several different schools based on classicism have developed, including the classicist and positivist schools of thought.
From the Paper
"Several different schools based on classicism have developed, including classicism, which reconsiders the limitations of an agent?s free will in cases such as self-defense or mistaken identity; largely it was an attempt to find a compromise of sorts between the classical and positivist perspective. Similarly, the Rational Choice perspective focuses on the decisions made by the criminal in an attempt to understand the ?goal? of any crime. Routine Activities Theory focuses on a situational analysis of crimes, considering when and where crimes most typically occur and how we can use those facts to prevent them. All of these schools are primarily informed by the classical beliefs that crimes are committed for rational reasons related to hedonistic principles."
| |
|
Utilitarianism as a Theory of Justice, 2005.
A discussion on whether utilitarianism fails as a theory of justice because of its disproportionate prioritisation of collective welfare over individual rights.
1,528 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 9 sources, APA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the concept of utilitarianism from a number of different angles and pays heed to writers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The paper discusses the concept of rights and whether or not utilitarianism does fail as a theory of justice and whether or not it prioritises collective welfare over the individual.
From the Paper
"John Stuart Mill was also a strong advocate of utilitarianism, but he took a slightly different view to Bentham. In one of his most famous works "Utilitarianism" he differed from Bentham's views, he supported a view of utilitarianism that saw the individual not just as enhancing welfare but behaving in such a way that would enhance so that they could enhance their own welfare. However this view of utilitarianism still arguably treats people as producers of welfare rather than individuals and it still suppresses the interest of the individual underneath those of collective welfare. John Charvet discusses this when he says, "As disinterested moral agents men must treat each other, in respect of their potential for producing pleasure and pain." "
| |
|
Classical and Neoclassical Criminology, 2005.
Compares classical and neoclassical criminology theories.
1,380 words (approx. 5.5 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares classical and neoclassical criminology theories and looks at their origins and how they developed. It looks at the current legal system in terms of where it fits into these theories, and shows how they are used in criminology today.
| |
|
Classical and Positivist Criminology, 2007.
A comparison of the classical thinking and the positivist perspective of criminology.
955 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses two of the most prominent schools of criminology: classical thinking and the positivist perspective. The paper compares the different precepts upon which each school of thought operates and analyzes each of the theories and their key assumptions. The paper then discusses their attribution of causal factors and each of their approaches to addressing crime.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Classical Criminology
Positivist Criminology
Conclusion
From the Paper
"The school of classical criminology differs significantly from the thinking demonstrated under the positivist approach to crime. Classical criminology has its origins in the concepts of free will, individual decision-making and the benefits of society to the individual. The school addresses the problem of crime using punishment and deterrent actions. On the other hand, positivism rejects the concept of the individual and free will and instead embraces the idea of enduring evolutionary traits that define a basic criminal personality, and which can be assessed using scientific methods. The two perspectives, though very different (and even contradictory) in nature, both provide the basis for a cohesive overall approach to addressing the problem of crime as a wide variety of approaches are incorporated."
| |
|
Rule-Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism, 2005.
A look at the controversial debate between the two major methods of implementing practical utilitarianism.
2,004 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper first defines act- and rule-utilitarianism before discussing their relative merits. It moves through the debate using a series of famous examples and counter-examples designed to highlight the faults of each method. For example, the accusation of "rule-worshipping" is contrasted with the idea that act-utilitarianism allows people to break promises, or is too demanding. The paper ultimately finds that rule-utilitarianism is all too likely to slip into act-utilitarianism if it is to avoid potentially dangerous rule-worship.
From the Paper
"The first principle of utilitarianism is acceptable enough, partly because Mill specifically spends much time discussing its proof in Utilitarianism, and partly because happiness as an ultimate end in life seems to the vast majority of people to be reasonable enough. However, there is great controversy between the opposing schools of utilitarianism about how exactly the individual utilitarian should make their moral decisions. The choice is between the principles of act-utilitarianism, which dictates that the rightness or wrongness of a single action is to be judged by the action's consequences, and those of rule-utilitarianism, which dictates that the action should be judged by a set of established rules, which are designed to produce the best consequences. It should also be noted that writers in both sides have cited passages in Mill's text which appear to support their point of view."
| |
|
Classical Marxist Theory and Classical Mercantilism, 2002.
Comparison paper on Marxism and Mercantilism.
1,496 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses and compares the economic aspects of Marxism and Mercantilism. It also compares the strengths and weaknesses inherent in both systems. Finally, the paper compares the way Marxist economy viewed its position in the international economy and the way the Mercantilist economy viewed its position.
From the Paper
"While no single treatise written by Marx and/or Engels covered all aspects of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto suggests many of its premises, the work Marx is most famous for, Das Kapital, developed many of the socialists doctrines that Marxism is known for. Though not well known, many pieces of the Marxist system were actually drawn from earlier economic and historical ideas. (Avineri) Works by earlier political philosophers and economists such as, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Saint-Simon, J.C. L. de Sismondi, David Ricardo, Charles Fourier, and Louis Blanc were all liberally drawn from. Never the less, Marxist analysis as fully developed by Marx and Engels, was conclusively original."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 1999.
This essay examines Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism and particularly what is meant by 'the principle of utility.'
1,537 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 9 sources, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explains Bentham?s reasons for developing utilitarianism as both a social and political framework. It examines utilitarianism in an individual and private environment, as well as its workings in a more widespread and universal atmosphere. The latter part of this essay focuses on the viability of utilitarianism in the public sphere, and whether it provides appropriate guidance for government policy-making. The main objective of this part of the essay is to determine whether Bentham?s principle of utility is appropriate as the foundation of a political structure. Thusly, it focuses on the attributes and failings of the principle of utility as a public philosophy.
From the Paper
"Bentham?s theory of utilitarianism was a result of deficiencies in government institutions in his country, and their failing to adequately serve the general satisfaction of its population. The principle of utility is based on intrinsic facts that motivate individuals, namely pleasure and pain. It is human nature to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain. Therefore what we ought and ought not to do is determined by these two ?sovereign masters?. The element of pleasure or pain involved in an action determines whether or not an individual, or group of people proceed with that action. All forms of utilitarianism are consequential. In every circumstance or action, a consequence is identified and then compared with the consequence of inaction.Whichever produces the greatest happiness is what ought to be done."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2002.
This paper discusses both Marx's and Bentham's view of utilitarianism.
2,650 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Marx's vision of utilitarianism was to literally change the world through revolution, usually conceived of in violent terms. The author points out that Jeremy Bentham, by way of stark contrast, never had any such dramatic vision. Bentham's efforts were directed at honing his particular (at times peculiar) brand of utilitarianism. His focus was reform; not revolution." He led the Philosophical Radicals groups which was dedicated to changing English institutions.
| |
|
Natural Rights, Rule and Act Utilitarianism, 2001.
A look at the British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham?s famous work " Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" in which he details his theory of Utilitarianism.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Bentham?s views on natural rights and how at first sight Utilitarianism seems to be antithetical to the idea of basic rights and whether it justifies the deprivation of an individual?s basic rights to serve the interests of the greatest numbers. It also explains how the theory of utilitarianism would justify respect for certain rights, and discuss the difference between rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism.
From the Paper
"Jeremy Bentham believed in applying empirical methods, rationalism and deductive arguments to the development of moral and legal theories. At the outset of his Principles of Morals and Legislation he has identified the basis of the principle of Utility on which the Utilitarianism has been founded?pain and pleasure, and calls them the two ?sovereign masters? of mankind. The principle of utility, on which most of Bentham?s work is based, has been explained by him as: ?Any action that promotes happiness of an individual or lessens pain is right while any action that increases pain or decreases happiness is wrong.? He further explains that the happiness of the individual is the same as the happiness of the community since the community is nothing but the sum total of individuals. Another key element in Bentham?s theory of Utility is the concept of the happiness for the greatest number?and his belief that the happiness for the greatest number of people is quantifiable. He has also expanded his theory to include the acts of not only the individuals but that of the government as well, and because of his interest in law, the scope of his work included the legislative and judicial reforms."
| |
|
Utilitarianism and Capital Punishment, 2002.
The following paper examines research from the classical school of criminology and current trends in capital punishment.
2,370 words (approx. 9.5 pages), 13 sources, APA, $ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines current facts and statistics, as well as the research or classical school criminologists over the last two centuries, which supports the fact that capital punishment is not a formidable means of punishment. Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarian Theory is made reference to in this paper.
From the Paper
"Capital punishment involves punishment by death, which involves execution. In the United States, this capital punishment can be executed when one commits first-degree murder, treason, or is a military deserter during wartime. During the eighteenth century Europe is when the first recorded opposition to capital punishment arose. Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794), had a profound effect on the study of capital punishment (Schmalleger, p.91). Beccaria influenced famous thinkers of his time and since, in his famous Essay on crime and Punishment, which is detailed in Jeremy Bentham's writings on Utilitarianism. There is an ongoing argument in the United States and abroad, as to whether capital punishment is a formidable means of punishment. Proponents believe that capital punishment deters criminal activity such as murder, while opponents of capital punishment believe that there is absolutely no effect on the murder rate. With overwhelming costs of keeping the condemned locked up during lengthly appeals processes and increasing moral questions of killing human beings, there is a huge controversy as to whether capital punishment is effective. Capital Punishment is not a formidable means of punsishment, which is supported by Jermey Bentham's Utilitarian Theory, inspired by Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crime and Punishment."
| |
|
Crime Theory, 2007.
An analysis of the theories of how to prevent an increase in violent crime.
1,493 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the theories behind why some people commit violent crimes against others. It discusses classical theory which is based on the early work of Cecare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. It then goes on to describe rational choice theory, deterrence theory and the rationalist theory. The paper suggests that an understanding of all the theories are necessary in order to attempt to curb an increase in violent crime.
From the Paper
"This is not to suggest that criminals should be coddled, a view parodied in the musical West Side Story when gang members sang out excuses for their bad behavior. If all criminal behavior were rationally driven, manipulation of the factors of certainty, severity and celerity would drastically reduce crime. However, ignoring the other things that influence and even detract from logical processes will lead to a greater understanding of why individuals commit crimes. In that way, the specific approach points to the general approach, because in research we find specific individuals, who, when grouped together in an effective research model, can suggest explanations for their behavior (Aurhahn & Parker, 1998). For example, research shows that alcohol abuse and violence correlate highly. But knowing such facts does not always point to simple solutions, possibly because behavior is too complex to be blamed on one behavior. This was demonstrated ironically and powerfully with this country's experiment with prohibition, which led to a dramatic increase in some crimes."
| |
|
Criminology Theories, 2005.
A comparison of two theories of criminology: the classic and the positivist.
960 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 34.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper provides a comparison of the basic elements of these two schools of thought. It explains how both suggested that criminals could be redirected toward lawful behavior, but classical views stressed the need to recondition or redirect criminals through behavior modification and psychological and moral influences. Criminals must be rationally convinced not to commit crimes. It explains how the positivist views, in contrast, stressed the different nature of criminals, socially and, above all, biologically. Criminals had a different genetic makeup than law-abiding citizens, which drove them into social milieus that only reinforced these tendencies.
From the Paper
"Although 18th century classical views of criminology should not be conflated with later, modern notions of classical psychological conditioning like Pavlov?s dog being trained to salivate at the sound of a bell, there are certain similarities between the two schools of thought and even some of the methods used in classical criminology to reorient criminals back into society. First and foremost, later forms of classical conditioning and the early classical school of criminality both stressed the ability, through repeated positive reinforcement of socially desirable traits and negative enforcement regarding antisocial traits deemed criminal by society. (Adler, et. al, 2004) For instance, Jeremy Bentham?s vision of a ?panopticon? like prison in classical criminology suggested a prison in which individuals were constantly watched, and thus were forced to monitor and reform their behavior accordingly. Eventually, the reinforcement of watching would no longer be necessary, after individuals had been reinstalled with proper notions and more importantly, taught proper methods of behavior that could create a better method of society (Bentham, 1761)"
|
|
|
